Elie H.

New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Elie H.

  • Rank
    New Member
  1. Thank you for your insight on this topic! very helpful. Yes I think that it is difficult to find a universal fit and it's a matter of preferences otherwise we would have seen a supermajority in the study MJ performed , Interesting though I have met some pretty advanced and exceptional violinists who were literally "magicians", they could perform so well on literally any generally properly set up instrument without having any playability issue.
  2. I believe that what works for classical violin players should work for electric players , since most of them are classically trained. Maybe there's a distinction with fiddlers which prefer less scoop in general from what I understood. Thank you for your dimensions. very insightful. It is true that different players have different preferences, but I thought that maybe there's some scoop dimensions that would provide an optimal fingerboard for most players, leaving the customized solution for specific cases.
  3. Thank you for your detailed explanation Davide, Let me add some information I didn't mention before since it didn't seems really important. The fingerboard will be going on an electric violin made out of resin and out of a single piece, but for some technical reasons (aesthetic as well) It will be difficult to plane this fingerboard after it's manufactured without damaging it, at least I'm nearly sure no luthier would agree to touch this thing. Initially I did not put any scoop in the fingerboard saying that the luthier will add it later, but now it seems difficult to follow this pat
  4. Is the asymmetry needed though? can the scoop be equal on E and G? and how much scoop is too much scoop?
  5. This makes sense, you're absolutely correct. But I wonder if this means there's no right or wrong scoop depth, if it's just user preference? this concept is so subtle I haven't heard about it once from the various musicians I know, and I didn't know about it either. My best guess would be to have some scoop to facilitate playability and reduce potential interference, but not enough scoop to make the player feel that the string is too high. Am I missing something? MJ does say that she is not advocating for any option in particular, but could the changes we are talking about be so subtle? I
  6. I found that if we assume constant radius across the length-it seems to be the most frequent choice for fingerboards-and account for a symmetric scoop on both sides, the closest geometric shape to the surface we get would be a section of a torus and taking the convex part of the torus. My main (possibly false) intuition would be that this should be a great surface since, as you can see in the curvature map in the picture, the surface have a very consistent concavity. Thank you for sharing MJ's work on this topic, I have been reading her very useful research on the topic and
  7. Hello, I am currently trying to draw an accurate representation of a violin fingerboard in 3 dimensions CAD, with the scooping already taken into consideration with the surface (because of the type of material I am testing my luthier might not be able to re-plane the fingerboard without damaging the instrument). After reading some great discussions around this forum I learned a lot about the theoretical shape and scoop depths etc... But I still have some questions I couldn't figure out on my own. Sorry if my questions are too dumb. 1. Is it possible to have a symmetric scoop dep